> General Discussions

Fathers on earth?

(1/4) > >>

deftarchangel:
Let me preface my question by saying that I’m not a Catholic, nor was I ever one.  I ask this question because I have Catholic friends, and this is a question I’ve never been able to pose properly because the Catholic defence for it is pretty adequate.  However, I know that there is something wrong with this Catholic practice, but I don’t know how to prove it.

The Lord Christ stated in Matt 23:9:

“And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and He is in heaven. “

Now obviously Catholics have, apparently, grossly violated this command, with priests and higher-ups in the Catholic hierarchy being addressed (and addressing themselves) as Father Someone (Father Michael, Father Tim, Father Eric, etc.), with the Pope even going so far as to take the title of HOLY Father (which, I have to say, takes a lot of brass to go and do).  But whenever you point out this apparent violation, the obvious argument comes up:

“Well, what do you call your biological father?  If you follow that command to the letter, then you can’t call your dad ‘father’ or address any male with a child as ‘father.’ 

Which is fair enough.  But to extend that even further (and perhaps play devil’s advocate here  ;)), even after Christ gave this command, the apostles still addressed Abraham as “our father” (Acts 7:2) and stating that he “is the father of us all.” (Rom 4:16).   ???  The verse prior to the one provided above states that you cannot call anyone “Rabbi” (or in English – “teacher”), or call anyone “Master.”  And yet, in societies all over the world, this is exactly what we do.  It’s very much commonplace to address a Jewish teacher as “Rabbi.”  We address our instructors in school as “teacher.”  In the martial arts, it’s commonplace to address a high ranking practitioner as Master, or even Grandmaster.  No one makes a big huff over it.  So, can we really come down so hard on the Catholics for adopting this practice?

Consider also that Christ said this to the masses.  According to Ray’s teachings, all of Christ’s words to the masses were parables or spiritual words (unless I’m misinterpreting something in Ray’s teachings), and that they weren’t necessarily to be taken literally.  Therefore, are Catholics justified by this?  Are they committing no sin by calling themselves Father?

As I said, something inside me says that you cannot go around using the title of “father” like the Catholics are doing.  And yet, I don’t know how to prove it.  Keep in mind that I’m not going to be going out of my way to go and debate with anyone about this.  It’s merely to settle it in my own mind, and provide some peace to me should the topic ever come up.

Thanks for your time.

Kind regards,

Rob   

judith collier:
Falconn, wanted to answer you the last time I was on but logged out before I did(something came up) and couldn't even get back on this site because it was the first time I ever logged out, aargh! Then had to find out about my password. Anyway, liked your description of spiritual to spiritual and spiritual to physical, didn't quite get that before and now understand why non-Catholics are offended. We could call the priests by their first names though, they even preferred it, at least the young uns'. First, what is the name of the discussion about "can we forgive other's sins" can't find it and I'm about read out and wanted to see your answer. (I haven't even learned to post yet) You asked me why I left the Catholic Church and what did I love about it. Never in all my wanderings have I experienced the Holiness of God and reverance to God as I did there. And the most important is the CROSS. The Cross has always been a foundation for me, the reality of persucution and suffering for a Christian is taught and taught well. Now, why did I leave, like so many other churches, questions against their dogma are not wanted, purgutory, birth control,women in the church,power,infallibility of the pope, there are others  but when God called me He called me Israel and nobody could answer that(at least the ones I talked with(2) and I knew the priests were not above me in regard to God but they wouldn't consider what I was trying to say. For some being a Catholic is loving your religion and I too loved it sometimes more than God. They wanted me to speak to a Bishop at the time but I was terrified God was going to make me a martyr or something and I didn't go as I didn't know God very well then. I learned much from the protestants and more from the evangelicals and more from the mystics but was still searching for good grounded truth as to what is the bottom line. Judy

hillsbororiver:
Hi Rob,

Rodger provided a very good response to your question, this is a spiritual command. One of the core problems with the churches is they supplant the spiritual with the earthly, physical and literal.

Paul makes the distinction here;

Heb 12:5  And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
 
Heb 12:6  For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
 
Heb 12:7  If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
 
Heb 12:8  But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye ********, and not sons.
 
Heb 12:9  Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits and live?
 
Heb 12:10  For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

No man is yours or our spiritual Father!

Peace,

Joe

Falconn003:

--- Quote from: Judy on January 15, 2009, 04:23:42 PM ---Falconn, wanted to answer you the last time I was on but logged out before I did(something came up) and couldn't even get back on this site because it was the first time I ever logged out, aargh! Then had to find out about my password. Anyway, liked your description of spiritual to spiritual and spiritual to physical, didn't quite get that before and now understand why non-Catholics are offended. We could call the priests by their first names though, they even preferred it, at least the young uns'. First, what is the name of the discussion about "can we forgive other's sins" can't find it and I'm about read out and wanted to see your answer. (I haven't even learned to post yet) You asked me why I left the Catholic Church and what did I love about it. Never in all my wanderings have I experienced the Holiness of God and reverance to God as I did there. And the most important is the CROSS. The Cross has always been a foundation for me, the reality of persucution and suffering for a Christian is taught and taught well. Now, why did I leave, like so many other churches, questions against their dogma are not wanted, purgutory, birth control,women in the church,power,infallibility of the pope, there are others  but when God called me He called me Israel and nobody could answer that(at least the ones I talked with(2) and I knew the priests were not above me in regard to God but they wouldn't consider what I was trying to say. For some being a Catholic is loving your religion and I too loved it sometimes more than God. They wanted me to speak to a Bishop at the time but I was terrified God was going to make me a martyr or something and I didn't go as I didn't know God very well then. I learned much from the protestants and more from the evangelicals and more from the mystics but was still searching for good grounded truth as to what is the bottom line. Judy

--- End quote ---

I blieve that htread may have been moved or deletted altoghter, atm i am not feeling to well (under benodryl atm), and hope we can pick up on this later on

Peace and Grace
Rodger

deftarchangel:
Thanks for the responses.  I understand a bit better the idea of matching spiritual with spiritual.

Having said that, however, I looked up the question on a Catholic website, because I wanted to know how they viewed the practice and how they defended it.  They too acknowledge that God is our “Spiritual” Father, but claim that the Apostles themselves ALSO viewed themselves as spiritual fathers to members of the church.

For example, the website points out that Paul, at various times, addressed individual members of the faith as his child, most often Timothy (1 Cor 4:17; 1 Tim 1:18; 2 Tim 2:1; Phil 2:22; Philemon 10; Titus 1:4).  Mind you, depending on the translation you read, some of these verses don’t necessarily put a possessive before the word “child,” but merely refer to the individual as “a child.”  But Paul does explicitly regard Timothy as his “beloved and faithful child in the Lord,” and regarded the church in Galatia as his “little children.” 

The website also forwards other passages of other Apostles regarding followers the same way.  Peter regarding Mark as his son (1 Peter 5:13).  John addressing his readers as his children (1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).  The website claims John addresses men as ‘fathers’ in 1 John 2:13-14, and therefore approved the practice of men assuming the spiritual father mantle.  Are these men John is addressing as ‘fathers’ men who merely have children, or are these, in fact, ‘spiritual’ fathers?
 
Another verse that is regarded as final proof that Paul saw himself as a spiritual father is 1 Cor. 4:14-15:

“Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."

Now once again, it may just be a translation issue, since a Concordant Version states the passage like this:

“For if you should be having ten thousand escorts in Christ, nevertheless not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus, through the evangel, I beget you.”

With all the above, I understand now why Catholic priests always refer to their congregation members as “my children” or “my child.”  That always sounded a little off to me, but how do you argue that point considering the Apostles also regarded their followers as their children as well?

Again, I know I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but I want to make sure this issue is put to rest in my mind.  I realize that my own understanding (or lack thereof) of the Scriptures may be a hindrance to that, so I’d appreciate any more insights to this question.

Thanks.

Rob. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page